1 Purpose

Kitsap County Pedestrian Facilities Metrics/Evaluation Report will:

Provide a complete evaluation of pedestrian facilities across the county down to the segment and side of road level
Present an aggregated quality rating for pedestrian facilities in specific areas
Target missing facilities critical to connecting communities or to connecting residential to local services, recreation, and shops
Show measure of progress (over time) of pedestrian facilities improvements (starting with the second report)

1.1 This Draft

This draft example was prepared by the Kitsap County Non-Motorized Community Advisory Committee Special Committee on Pedestrian Metrics. It is NOT considered an authoritative source of these data and is NOT an official report of the county.

2 Introduction

This report provides a complete evaluation of pedestrian facilities in Kitsap County comparing the actual facilities to a minimum adequate pedestrian facility level. The minimum adequate pedestrian facility level is either a paved shoulder or a sidewalk of a certain minimum width - depending on the character of the road.

The intended audience is the people of Kitsap County and law/decision makers determining how to target limited funds for transportation development.

Not all road segments will be evaluated. This report excludes road segments that are:

Inside of cities (Bremerton, Port Orchard, etc.)¹
Local easements²
Highways³
Speed limit > 50 MPH⁴

3 Data and Methods

3.1 Data

Kitsap County maintains data on roads, sidewalks, and shoulders. These data all use the Kitsap County Public Works Road Log Id to identify road segments. Combined, these data allow for assessment of the quality of pedestrian facilities on Kitsap County roads. In addition, Kitsap County maintains data on the geographic representations of the cities, UGAs, LAMIRDs, and some key points of interest (like schools and parks) within the County.(Kitsap County GIS 2022a)

These are the roads that will be evaluated.

Roads by Class in Kitsap County, excluding cities, highways, and easements
Road Classification	Count of Roads	Count of Segments	Length in Miles
Principal Arterial	4	48	5.3
Minor Arterial	72	755	105.5
Major Collector	112	844	142.6
Minor Collector	28	203	52.1
Local Access	2,372	5,246	664.5
Total	2,506	7,096	970.0

These are the sidewalk and shoulders also outside of Cities. Single sides shown. This is one example where we know the data are incomplete; for example, Silverdale Way is not in a city and is known to have sidewalks on both sides.⁵ For this draft example report it is okay; if the initial report is completed with the incomplete data, it will present a poorer overall condition of pedestrian facilities than is in place.

Miles of Sidewalks by Width of Sidewalk (single side)
Width in Feet	miles
3 ft	13.9
4 ft	0.3
5 ft	3.8
8 ft	0.2
Total	18.1

Miles of Paved Shoulder by Width of Shoulder (single side)
Width in Feet	miles
1 ft	24.1
2 ft	17.8
3 ft	30.7
4 ft	56.9
5 ft	60.5
6 ft	48.0
7 ft	9.7
8 ft	32.0
10 ft	3.9
12 ft	0.1
15 ft	0.1
17 ft	0.0
Total	284.0

3.1.1 Combining the Data

In order to do this evaluation, we must combine the roads data (which has information on the class and setting of roads) with the sidewalk and shoulder data (with information about the pedestrian facilities). However, the most obvious methods of combination fail.

3.1.1.1 Matching on Road Log Id is good but insufficient

All of the data sets appear to use the same set of road log IDs from public works. Unfortunately, knowing that there is a shoulder or sidewalk somewhere on a road does not get to how much of that road has the sidewalk or shoulder.⁶

This diagnostic and ugly plot is intended to show the coverage of road log id across the sidewalk and shoulder data sets compared to the raod data. While the sidewalk and shoulder data are more sparse, the range is consistent.

The most obvious smaller match is the segment id. However, **NOTE: We cannot actually use the SEGMENT ID in this draft report because it does not have the same meaning in the sidewalk and shoulder data as it has in the road data. The following plots are diagnostic but show that the sidewalks and shoulders data do not have segment ids covering the same spectrum as the road data.

The segment ids are clearly not from the same space, but the road log ids are consistent.⁷ However, we cannot combine on road log id alone - because the roads change character and the type of pedestrian facilities over space. We combine instead on geometry.

For now, we are making a space around a sidewalk or shoulder geometry, a buffer, to capture the nearby area where the road would be, and seeing if there are any road segments that intersect. If the road segment intersects and has the same road log id, we keep it.

3.2 Method of Evaluation

Road segments are the basis for evaluation because they are the smallest unit in common across the data and can be grouped together to form trips. Actually matching up the data for roads, shoulders, and sidewalks will prove to be a more complicated task than it appears at first blush. As noted in the Data section, the Segment IDs in the shoulder and sidewalk data do not cover the range of segments as in the road data. Here, we join based on the geometries of the roads and sidewalks/shoulders.⁸

Each road segment is evaluated individually. For each road segment, its adequate pedestrian facility level is based on its classification and the Kitsap County Road Standards Table 3.3 and 3.4.(Kitsap County Public Works 2020)⁹

Summary of Tables 3.3 and 3.4 in Kitsap County Road Standards (Kitsap County Public Works 2020)
setting	class	characteristics	sidewalk	shoulder
Urban	Local Road		5
Urban	Local Sub-collector		5
Urban	Arterial		6
Urban	Collector		6
Rural	Local Road			3
Rural	Local Sub-collector			4
Rural	Collector	ADT 400-750		3
Rural	Collector	ADT 751-1000		4
Rural	Collector	DHV 100-200		6
Rural	Collector	DHV > 200		8
Rural	Minor Arterial	DHV < 100		4
Rural	Minor Arterial	DHV 100-200		6
Rural	Minor Arterial	DHV > 200		8
Rural	Principal Arterial	DHV <200		6
Rural	Principal Arterial	DHV > 200		8
Note:
Within the road standards, the minimum shoulder width may be reduced to the minimum required by AASHTO, which would be 4-8 feet, depending on the ADT. Note: sub-collector, ADT, and DHV are not defined in the publicly available road data.

Because of all of the items that are not available in the road data at this time, this draft makes some assumptions to allow for an evaluation. When the information is known, a more accurate evaluation can be made.¹⁰

Simplified Assumptions to Allow for Evaluation
setting	class	sidewalk	shoulder
Urban	Local Access	5
Urban	Minor Collector	6
Urban	Major Collector	6
Urban	Minor Arterial	6
Urban	Principal Arterial	6
Rural	Local Access		3
Rural	Minor Collector		3
Rural	Major Collector		4
Rural	Minor Arterial		4
Rural	Principal Arterial		6
Note:
This is only a simplification to allow for an evaluation without knowledge of ADT or DHV on the roads under evaluation

Road segments that are explicitly excluded from the evaluation will be scored NA and not included in a summary of pedestrian metrics in an area (they will neither improve nor pull down the summary score).

Pedestrian facilities on road segments will be scored based on the sum of the score of the sides. A side of the road for a segment will be scored:

5 if it has a sidewalk or shoulder of adequate size (based on road classification & standards) or a sidewalk is present where a shoulder is the standard
3 if the sidewalk or shoulder is present and is minimum AASHTO requirement (like a 4 ft shoulder)
1 if the sidewalk or shoulder is present and is narrower than AASHTO (NOTE to subcommittee - do we think we should use a 1 if there is a shoulder when there should be a sidewalk?)
0 if none present or no data

Therefore, segments with sidewalk or shoulder of adequate size (based on road classification) on both sides of road would receive a 10. Segments with no data or with no sidewalk or shoulder would receive a 0.

Any given area score will be a weighted average of the scores of the segments within the area. Weighting is by centerline linear feet per segment. A simple example is an area composed of 4 segments.

Segment	Segment Score	Segment Centerline Linear Feet
A	6.0	100
B	0.0	10
C	10.0	50
D	8.0	200
Total	7.5	360

The Total Score would be the segment scores multiplied by their linear feet and then divided by the total linear feet of the area (360). For this example, we get a area score of 7.5 \[ 6 x 100 + 0 x 10 + 10 x 50 + 8 x 200 = 2700\] \[2700/360 = 7.5\]

This example shows how the aggregation works. With a weighted score of 7.5, we have to determine how that should be interpreted. We developed a score interpretation. Generally, we want segments to score a 10, right? But if it has at least a 5, it is adequate.

Interpretation of Scores for Segments and for Areas
Score At Least	Interpretation
10	Good
5	Adequate
3	Minimum
1	Poor
> 0	Very Poor
0	Nothing
Note:
For a segment, adequate means one side is good or both sides meet AASHTO minimums and minimal means one side meets AASHTO minimums

4 Results

First, we calculate the score overall for the county and then break it down for other smaller units of area in our community. Every score shown, except when explicitly for a single segment, is a weighted score based on the length of segments of road and their respective pedestrian facilities (sidewalks or shoulders) as shown in the example above.

4.1 Overall

The overall score for pedestrian facilities in Kitsap County is 0.8, Very Poor.

Looking by the same breakdown that we have for standards, we can see where the scores are highest and lowest.

Weighted Scores by Standard Group
Setting	Class	Score	Interpretation
Rural	Local Access	0.2	Very Poor
Rural	Major Collector	3.0	Poor
Rural	Minor Arterial	5.0	Adequate
Rural	Minor Collector	2.1	Poor
Unknown	Local Access	1.9	Poor
Unknown	Minor Arterial	0	Nothing
Urban	Local Access	0.1	Very Poor
Urban	Major Collector	0	Nothing
Urban	Minor Arterial	0.0	Very Poor
Urban	Minor Collector	0	Nothing
Urban	Principal Arterial	0.1	Very Poor
Note:
Unknown setting is scored as if it is Urban.

If we remove the segments where we do not have information about sidewalks and shoulders at all, we can see that for those, we are generally finding higher scores for rural roads - with paved shoulders.

Some of the segments with score of 0 are because they have shoulders when they should have sidewalks. If you are familiar with Central Kitsap, you might recognize this kind of situation on Provost/Old Frontier - where there are wide shoulders, but the road is in the urban growth area and identified as urban; therefore, design standards suggest sidewalks are appropriate. Here’s a few example segments.

Setting	Class	Name	shoulder R	shoulder L	standard sidewalk
Urban	Minor Arterial	NE MCWILLIAMS RD	3	5	6
Urban	Minor Arterial	CENTRAL VALLEY RD NE	5	5	6
Urban	Minor Arterial	NW BUCKLIN HILL RD	3	5	6
Urban	Minor Arterial	NW BUCKLIN HILL RD	6		6
Urban	Minor Arterial	NW BUCKLIN HILL RD	6	8	6
Urban	Minor Arterial	NW BUCKLIN HILL RD		5	6

Several road segments were able to achieve a score of 10 - meaning that the segment met the standard on both sides of the road. A few details for a few roads where at least one segment has a 10 are shown here.¹¹

Setting	Class	Name	Segments w 10	Segment Length	Ped Fac Length
Rural	Local Access	CASSIE PL NW	1	0.2	0.2
Rural	Local Access	FEIGLEY RD W	1	0.6	0.1
Rural	Local Access	LITTLE BOSTON RD NE	10	2.9	2.5
Rural	Local Access	MCINTOSH LOOP NE	1	0.4	0.4
Rural	Local Access	NE APPLE TREE POINT LN	1	0.1	0.1
Rural	Local Access	NE CENTER ST	3	0.1	0.1

Some road segments are missing entirely from the centerline road data - for example, the portion of Ridgetop that goes from the end of Myhre and curves back to Silverdale Way. These missing road segments on Ridgetop are mostly complete streets with wide sidewalks. Here, showing a map with all roads with the name RIDGETOP, you can only see the part going from Silverdale Way to Myhre.¹² These segments, and any others like them, missing from the data decrease the overall pedestrian facilities score.

4.2 Smaller Breakdowns of the County

We can also look at regions and pedestrian generators within the County. For these, we identify the roads and any sidewalks or shoulders.¹³

Regions are already defined by an area. For pedestrian generators, we identify an area that is within 30 minute walking distance of the facility and evaluate roads therein.¹⁴

These regions and pedestrian generators are:

Commissioner Districts
UGAs
LAMIRDs
Public Schools
Public Libraries
Transit Centers

For each smaller region or pedestrian generator type, we show a map of Kitsap County (sans incorporated cities) indicating locations of the regions of that type.

Then, for each individual region, we show the pedestrian facilities on the left side and the right side of the road and calculate scores.

4.2.1 Commissioner Districts

Kitsap County has 6 Commissioner Districts.

4.2.1.1 3 Central

Within this area, there are 313.0 centerline road miles; 89.4 miles of recorded sidewalk or shoulder (either side of road); and 87.5 miles where we could match the recorded sidewalk or shoulder to a road segment (either side of road).

The overall score for pedestrian facilities in 3 Central is 0.4, Very Poor.

A few segments where sidewalks or shoulders were matched to a road segment, but the resulting score was 0 are shown here.

Setting	Class	Name	shoulder R	standard sidewalk
Urban	Major Collector	OLD FRONTIER RD NW	2	6
Urban	Major Collector	OLD FRONTIER RD NW	2	6
Urban	Minor Arterial	NE FAIRGROUNDS RD	15	6
Urban	Minor Arterial	NW BUCKLIN HILL RD	3	6
Urban	Minor Arterial	NW BUCKLIN HILL RD	3	6
Urban	Minor Arterial	NW BUCKLIN HILL RD	3	6

A few good (score 10) segments are shown here.

Setting	Class	Name	sidewalk R	sidewalk L	shoulder R	shoulder L	standard sidewalk	standard shoulder
Urban	Local Access	NE WYOMING ST	5	5			5
Urban	Local Access	NE NANTUCKET ST	5	5			5
Rural	Major Collector	NW HOLLY RD			6	6		4
Rural	Major Collector	NW HOLLY RD			6	6		4
Rural	Major Collector	NW HOLLY RD			6	6		4
Rural	Major Collector	NW HOLLY RD			6	6		4

4.2.1.2 1 North

Within this area, there are 291.6 centerline road miles; 112.6 miles of recorded sidewalk or shoulder (either side of road); and 111.8 miles where we could match the recorded sidewalk or shoulder to a road segment (either side of road).

The overall score for pedestrian facilities in 1 North is 1.1, Poor.

A few segments where sidewalks or shoulders were matched to a road segment, but the resulting score was 0 are shown here.

Setting	Class	Name	shoulder R	shoulder L	standard sidewalk
Urban	Major Collector	NE WEST KINGSTON RD	10		6
Urban	Local Access	SCHOLD RD NW	3		5
Urban	Local Access	SCHOLD RD NW	3	4	5
Urban	Principal Arterial	SILVERDALE WAY NW	8		6
Urban	Principal Arterial	SILVERDALE WAY NW	8		6
Urban	Local Access	BARBER CUT OFF RD NE	6	2	5

A few good (score 10) segments are shown here.

Setting	Class	Name	shoulder R	shoulder L	standard shoulder
Rural	Major Collector	HANSVILLE RD NE	7	8	4
Rural	Major Collector	HANSVILLE RD NE	7	8	4
Rural	Major Collector	HANSVILLE RD NE	7	8	4
Rural	Major Collector	HANSVILLE RD NE	7	8	4
Rural	Minor Collector	HOOD CANAL DR NE	6	6	3
Rural	Major Collector	HANSVILLE RD NE	4	4	4

4.2.1.3 2 South

Within this area, there are 366.1 centerline road miles; 100.1 miles of recorded sidewalk or shoulder (either side of road); and 99.7 miles where we could match the recorded sidewalk or shoulder to a road segment (either side of road).

The overall score for pedestrian facilities in 2 South is 0.8, Very Poor.

A few segments where sidewalks or shoulders were matched to a road segment, but the resulting score was 0 are shown here.

Setting	Class	Name	shoulder R	shoulder L	standard sidewalk
Urban	Minor Arterial	GLENWOOD RD SW	6		6
Urban	Minor Arterial	GLENWOOD RD SW	6	6	6
Urban	Minor Arterial	GLENWOOD RD SW	6	6	6
Urban	Minor Arterial	GLENWOOD RD SW	6		6
Urban	Minor Arterial	BETHEL RD SE	4	4	6
Urban	Minor Arterial	BETHEL RD SE	4		6

A few good (score 10) segments are shown here.

Setting	Class	Name	sidewalk R	sidewalk L	shoulder R	shoulder L	standard shoulder
Rural	Local Access	SW BISHOP CT	3	3			3
Rural	Major Collector	BANNER RD SE			5	5	4
Rural	Major Collector	BANNER RD SE			5	5	4
Rural	Major Collector	BANNER RD SE			5	5	4
Rural	Major Collector	BANNER RD SE			5	5	4
Rural	Major Collector	BANNER RD SE			5	5	4

4.2.2 UGAs

Kitsap County has 37 UGAs.

4.2.2.1 Kingston UGA

Within this area, there are 10.7 centerline road miles; 7.6 miles of recorded sidewalk or shoulder (either side of road); and 7.0 miles where we could match the recorded sidewalk or shoulder to a road segment (either side of road).

The overall score for pedestrian facilities in Kingston UGA is 0.2, Very Poor.

A few segments where sidewalks or shoulders were matched to a road segment, but the resulting score was 0 are shown here.

Setting	Class	Name	shoulder R	shoulder L	standard sidewalk
Urban	Local Access	BARBER CUT OFF RD NE	6	2	5
Urban	Local Access	BARBER CUT OFF RD NE	6		5
Urban	Local Access	BARBER CUT OFF RD NE	6	2	5
Urban	Local Access	BARBER CUT OFF RD NE	6		5
Urban	Major Collector	NE WEST KINGSTON RD		6	6
Urban	Major Collector	NE WEST KINGSTON RD	6	6	6

4.2.2.2 Bremerton West UGA

Within this area, there are 20.3 centerline road miles; 1.9 miles of recorded sidewalk or shoulder (either side of road); and 1.9 miles where we could match the recorded sidewalk or shoulder to a road segment (either side of road).

The overall score for pedestrian facilities in Bremerton West UGA is 0.0, Very Poor.

A few segments where sidewalks or shoulders were matched to a road segment, but the resulting score was 0 are shown here.

Setting	Class	Name	shoulder R	shoulder L	standard sidewalk
Urban	Local Access	NW HOLLY BEACH CT	1		5
Urban	Local Access	NW MONTWOOD LN	1	1	5
Urban	Local Access	NW HOLLY BEACH CT		1	5
Urban	Local Access	CHARLESTON BEACH RD W	2	2	5
Urban	Local Access	CHARLESTON BEACH RD W	2	2	5
Urban	Minor Arterial	S NATIONAL AVE	6	6	6

4.2.2.3 Port Orchard UGA

Within this area, there are 50.3 centerline road miles; 19.4 miles of recorded sidewalk or shoulder (either side of road); and 19.1 miles where we could match the recorded sidewalk or shoulder to a road segment (either side of road).

The overall score for pedestrian facilities in Port Orchard UGA is 0.1, Very Poor.

A few segments where sidewalks or shoulders were matched to a road segment, but the resulting score was 0 are shown here.

Setting	Class	Name	shoulder R	shoulder L	standard sidewalk
Urban	Minor Arterial	GLENWOOD RD SW		4	6
Urban	Minor Arterial	GLENWOOD RD SW		4	6
Urban	Minor Arterial	GLENWOOD RD SW		4	6
Urban	Minor Arterial	BETHEL RD SE	4	4	6
Urban	Minor Arterial	BETHEL RD SE	4		6
Urban	Minor Arterial	BETHEL RD SE	4	4	6

4.2.2.4 Bremerton East UGA

Within this area, there are 18.4 centerline road miles; 5.1 miles of recorded sidewalk or shoulder (either side of road); and 4.3 miles where we could match the recorded sidewalk or shoulder to a road segment (either side of road).

The overall score for pedestrian facilities in Bremerton East UGA is 0.3, Very Poor.

A few segments where sidewalks or shoulders were matched to a road segment, but the resulting score was 0 are shown here.

Setting	Class	Name	shoulder R	shoulder L	standard sidewalk
Urban	Major Collector	NE SYLVAN WAY		3	6
Urban	Major Collector	NE SYLVAN WAY	3	3	6
Urban	Major Collector	NE SYLVAN WAY	3	3	6
Urban	Major Collector	NE SYLVAN WAY	3	3	6
Urban	Major Collector	NE SYLVAN WAY	3	3	6
Urban	Major Collector	NE SYLVAN WAY	3	3	6

A few good (score 10) segments are shown here.

Setting	Class	Name	sidewalk R	sidewalk L	shoulder R	shoulder L	standard sidewalk	standard shoulder
Urban	Local Access	NE WYOMING ST	5	5			5
Urban	Local Access	NE NANTUCKET ST	5	5			5

4.2.2.5 Central Kitsap UGA

Within this area, there are 76.0 centerline road miles; 18.8 miles of recorded sidewalk or shoulder (either side of road); and 17.7 miles where we could match the recorded sidewalk or shoulder to a road segment (either side of road).

The overall score for pedestrian facilities in Central Kitsap UGA is 0.1, Very Poor.

A few segments where sidewalks or shoulders were matched to a road segment, but the resulting score was 0 are shown here.

Setting	Class	Name	shoulder R	shoulder L	standard sidewalk
Urban	Minor Arterial	NE FAIRGROUNDS RD	15		6
Urban	Minor Arterial	TRACYTON BLVD NW		4	6
Urban	Minor Arterial	NE MCWILLIAMS RD	3	5	6
Urban	Minor Arterial	NE MCWILLIAMS RD	3		6
Urban	Minor Arterial	NE MCWILLIAMS RD	3		6
Urban	Minor Arterial	NW BUCKLIN HILL RD		8	6

4.2.2.6 Gorst UGA

Within this area, there are 2.0 centerline road miles; 0.5 miles of recorded sidewalk or shoulder (either side of road); and 0.5 miles where we could match the recorded sidewalk or shoulder to a road segment (either side of road).

The overall score for pedestrian facilities in Gorst UGA is 0.0, Nothing.

A few segments where sidewalks or shoulders were matched to a road segment, but the resulting score was 0 are shown here.

Setting	Class	Name	shoulder R	shoulder L	standard sidewalk
Urban	Local Access	SAM CHRISTOPHERSON AVE W	7	7	5
Urban	Local Access	SAM CHRISTOPHERSON AVE W	7	7	5
Urban	Local Access	SAM CHRISTOPHERSON AVE W		7	5
Urban	Local Access	SAM CHRISTOPHERSON AVE W	7		5

4.2.2.7 Silverdale UGA

Within this area, there are 69.7 centerline road miles; 30.5 miles of recorded sidewalk or shoulder (either side of road); and 29.4 miles where we could match the recorded sidewalk or shoulder to a road segment (either side of road).

The overall score for pedestrian facilities in Silverdale UGA is 0.1, Very Poor.

A few segments where sidewalks or shoulders were matched to a road segment, but the resulting score was 0 are shown here.

Setting	Class	Name	shoulder R	standard sidewalk
Urban	Major Collector	OLD FRONTIER RD NW	2	6
Urban	Major Collector	OLD FRONTIER RD NW	2	6
Urban	Minor Arterial	NW BUCKLIN HILL RD	3	6
Urban	Minor Arterial	NW BUCKLIN HILL RD	3	6
Urban	Minor Arterial	NW BUCKLIN HILL RD	3	6
Urban	Local Access	SCHOLD RD NW	3	5

4.2.2.8 Poulsbo UTA

Within this area, there are 2.3 centerline road miles; 0.7 miles of recorded sidewalk or shoulder (either side of road); and 0.7 miles where we could match the recorded sidewalk or shoulder to a road segment (either side of road).

The overall score for pedestrian facilities in Poulsbo UTA is 0.0, Nothing.

A few segments where sidewalks or shoulders were matched to a road segment, but the resulting score was 0 are shown here.

Setting	Class	Name	shoulder R	shoulder L	standard sidewalk
Urban	Minor Arterial	NW FINN HILL RD	5		6
Urban	Minor Arterial	NW FINN HILL RD	5		6
Urban	Minor Arterial	NW FINN HILL RD	5	5	6
Urban	Minor Arterial	NW FINN HILL RD		5	6
Urban	Minor Arterial	NW FINN HILL RD		5	6
Urban	Minor Arterial	VIKING WAY NW		7	6

4.2.2.9 Puget Sound Industrial Center - Bremerton

This area does not have known roads.

This area does not have known sidewalks or shoulders.

The overall score for pedestrian facilities in Puget Sound Industrial Center - Bremerton is 0.0, Nothing.

4.2.3 LAMIRDs

Kitsap County has 10 LAMIRDs.

4.2.3.1 Manchester

Within this area, there are 21.9 centerline road miles; 4.9 miles of recorded sidewalk or shoulder (either side of road); and 4.8 miles where we could match the recorded sidewalk or shoulder to a road segment (either side of road).

The overall score for pedestrian facilities in Manchester is 1.0, Poor.

A few good (score 10) segments are shown here.

Setting	Class	Name	shoulder R	shoulder L	standard shoulder
Rural	Minor Arterial	COLCHESTER DR SE	6	4	4
Rural	Minor Arterial	COLCHESTER DR SE	6	4	4
Rural	Minor Arterial	COLCHESTER DR SE	6	4	4
Rural	Minor Arterial	COLCHESTER DR SE	6	4	4
Rural	Minor Arterial	COLCHESTER DR SE	6	4	4
Rural	Minor Arterial	COLCHESTER DR E	6	4	4

4.2.3.2 Suquamish

Within this area, there are 11.3 centerline road miles; 1.8 miles of recorded sidewalk or shoulder (either side of road); and 1.5 miles where we could match the recorded sidewalk or shoulder to a road segment (either side of road).

The overall score for pedestrian facilities in Suquamish is 0.6, Very Poor.

A few good (score 10) segments are shown here.

Setting	Class	Name	sidewalk R	sidewalk L	shoulder R	shoulder L	standard sidewalk	standard shoulder
Rural	Local Access	NE CENTER ST			3	3		3

4.2.3.3 Streibels Corner

This area does not have known sidewalks or shoulders.

Within this area, there are 0.8 centerline road miles; 0 miles of recorded sidewalk or shoulder (either side of road); and 0 miles where we could match the recorded sidewalk or shoulder to a road segment (either side of road).

The overall score for pedestrian facilities in Streibels Corner is 0.0, Nothing.

4.2.3.4 Bond/Gunderson

This area does not have known sidewalks or shoulders.

Within this area, there are 0.4 centerline road miles; 0 miles of recorded sidewalk or shoulder (either side of road); and 0 miles where we could match the recorded sidewalk or shoulder to a road segment (either side of road).

The overall score for pedestrian facilities in Bond/Gunderson is 0.0, Nothing.

4.2.3.5 Port Orchard Airport

Within this area, there are 1.0 centerline road miles; 1.9 miles of recorded sidewalk or shoulder (either side of road); and 1.9 miles where we could match the recorded sidewalk or shoulder to a road segment (either side of road).

The overall score for pedestrian facilities in Port Orchard Airport is 9.5, Adequate.

A few good (score 10) segments are shown here.

Setting	Class	Name	sidewalk R	sidewalk L	shoulder R	shoulder L	standard sidewalk	standard shoulder
Rural	Major Collector	SIDNEY RD SW			6	6		4

4.2.3.6 Port Gamble

This area does not have known sidewalks or shoulders.

Within this area, there are 0.6 centerline road miles; 0 miles of recorded sidewalk or shoulder (either side of road); and 0 miles where we could match the recorded sidewalk or shoulder to a road segment (either side of road).

The overall score for pedestrian facilities in Port Gamble is 0.0, Nothing.

4.2.3.7 Twelve Trees

Within this area, there are 0.7 centerline road miles; 0.1 miles of recorded sidewalk or shoulder (either side of road); and 0.0 miles where we could match the recorded sidewalk or shoulder to a road segment (either side of road).

The overall score for pedestrian facilities in Twelve Trees is 0.3, Very Poor.

4.2.3.8 Ecology Road

This area does not have known sidewalks or shoulders.

Within this area, there are 0.2 centerline road miles; 0 miles of recorded sidewalk or shoulder (either side of road); and 0 miles where we could match the recorded sidewalk or shoulder to a road segment (either side of road).

The overall score for pedestrian facilities in Ecology Road is 0.0, Nothing.

4.2.3.9 Keyport

Within this area, there are 1.9 centerline road miles; 0.0 miles of recorded sidewalk or shoulder (either side of road); and 0.0 miles where we could match the recorded sidewalk or shoulder to a road segment (either side of road).

The overall score for pedestrian facilities in Keyport is 0.1, Very Poor.

4.2.3.10 George’s Corner

Within this area, there are 0.3 centerline road miles; 0.3 miles of recorded sidewalk or shoulder (either side of road); and 0.3 miles where we could match the recorded sidewalk or shoulder to a road segment (either side of road).

The overall score for pedestrian facilities in George’s Corner is 2.4, Poor.

4.2.4 Public Schools

Kitsap County has 66 Public Schools; however, only 39 are outside of city limits. Here they are shown with a 30 minute walking distance.

4.2.4.1 West Hills STEM Academy

Within this area, there are 3.3 centerline road miles; 0.5 miles of recorded sidewalk or shoulder (either side of road); and 0.7 miles where we could match the recorded sidewalk or shoulder to a road segment (either side of road). There are duplicate segments matching.

The overall score for pedestrian facilities in West Hills STEM Academy is 0.0, Very Poor.

A few segments where sidewalks or shoulders were matched to a road segment, but the resulting score was 0 are shown here.

Setting	Class	Name	shoulder R	shoulder L	standard sidewalk
Urban	Local Access	CHARLESTON BEACH RD W	2	2	5
Urban	Local Access	CHARLESTON BEACH RD W	2	2	5
Urban	Minor Arterial	S NATIONAL AVE	6	6	6
Urban	Minor Arterial	S NATIONAL AVE	6	6	6
Urban	Minor Arterial	S NATIONAL AVE	6	6	6
Urban	Minor Arterial	S NATIONAL AVE	6		6

4.2.4.2 David Wolfle Elementary

Within this area, there are 1.8 centerline road miles; 0.6 miles of recorded sidewalk or shoulder (either side of road); and 0.6 miles where we could match the recorded sidewalk or shoulder to a road segment (either side of road).

The overall score for pedestrian facilities in David Wolfle Elementary is 0.4, Very Poor.

A few good (score 10) segments are shown here.

Setting	Class	Name	shoulder R	shoulder L	standard shoulder
Rural	Major Collector	HANSVILLE RD NE	7	8	4
Rural	Major Collector	HANSVILLE RD NE	7	8	4
Rural	Major Collector	HANSVILLE RD NE	7	8	4
Rural	Major Collector	HANSVILLE RD NE	7	8	4
Rural	Major Collector	HANSVILLE RD NE	7	8	4
Rural	Major Collector	HANSVILLE RD NE	7	8	4

4.2.4.3 Kingston Middle

Within this area, there are 2.4 centerline road miles; 2.5 miles of recorded sidewalk or shoulder (either side of road); and 3.1 miles where we could match the recorded sidewalk or shoulder to a road segment (either side of road). There are duplicate segments matching.

The overall score for pedestrian facilities in Kingston Middle is 0.4, Very Poor.

A few segments where sidewalks or shoulders were matched to a road segment, but the resulting score was 0 are shown here.

Setting	Class	Name	shoulder R	shoulder L	standard sidewalk
Urban	Major Collector	NE WEST KINGSTON RD	10	10	6
Urban	Major Collector	NE WEST KINGSTON RD	10	10	6
Urban	Local Access	BARBER CUT OFF RD NE	6	2	5
Urban	Local Access	BARBER CUT OFF RD NE	6	2	5
Urban	Local Access	BARBER CUT OFF RD NE	6	2	5
Urban	Local Access	BARBER CUT OFF RD NE	6	2	5

A few good (score 10) segments are shown here.

Setting	Class	Name	sidewalk R	sidewalk L	shoulder R	shoulder L	standard sidewalk	standard shoulder
Rural	Major Collector	NE WEST KINGSTON RD			10	10		4

4.2.4.4 Choice Academy

Within this area, there are 3.8 centerline road miles; 3.2 miles of recorded sidewalk or shoulder (either side of road); and 3.8 miles where we could match the recorded sidewalk or shoulder to a road segment (either side of road). There are duplicate segments matching.

The overall score for pedestrian facilities in Choice Academy is 0.3, Very Poor.

A few segments where sidewalks or shoulders were matched to a road segment, but the resulting score was 0 are shown here.

Setting	Class	Name	shoulder R	shoulder L	standard sidewalk
Urban	Major Collector	NE WEST KINGSTON RD	10	10	6
Urban	Major Collector	NE WEST KINGSTON RD	10	10	6
Urban	Local Access	BARBER CUT OFF RD NE	6	2	5
Urban	Local Access	BARBER CUT OFF RD NE	6	2	5
Urban	Local Access	BARBER CUT OFF RD NE	6	2	5
Urban	Local Access	BARBER CUT OFF RD NE	6	2	5

A few good (score 10) segments are shown here.

Setting	Class	Name	sidewalk R	sidewalk L	shoulder R	shoulder L	standard sidewalk	standard shoulder
Rural	Major Collector	NE WEST KINGSTON RD			10	10		4

4.2.4.5 Suquamish Elementary

Within this area, there are 5.4 centerline road miles; 1.3 miles of recorded sidewalk or shoulder (either side of road); and 1.7 miles where we could match the recorded sidewalk or shoulder to a road segment (either side of road). There are duplicate segments matching.

The overall score for pedestrian facilities in Suquamish Elementary is 0.5, Very Poor.

A few good (score 10) segments are shown here.

Setting	Class	Name	shoulder R	shoulder L	standard shoulder
Rural	Major Collector	SUQUAMISH WAY NE	5	5	4
Rural	Major Collector	SUQUAMISH WAY NE	5	5	4
Rural	Major Collector	SUQUAMISH WAY NE	5	5	4
Rural	Minor Arterial	AUGUSTA AVE NE	5	5	4
Rural	Minor Arterial	SUQUAMISH WAY NE	7	6	4
Rural	Minor Arterial	SUQUAMISH WAY NE	7	6	4

4.2.4.6 Cougar Valley Elementary

This area does not have known sidewalks or shoulders.

Within this area, there are 1.8 centerline road miles; 0 miles of recorded sidewalk or shoulder (either side of road); and 0 miles where we could match the recorded sidewalk or shoulder to a road segment (either side of road). There are duplicate segments matching.

The overall score for pedestrian facilities in Cougar Valley Elementary is 0.0, Nothing.

4.2.4.7 Clear Creek Elementary

Within this area, there are 2.9 centerline road miles; 2.4 miles of recorded sidewalk or shoulder (either side of road); and 2.7 miles where we could match the recorded sidewalk or shoulder to a road segment (either side of road). There are duplicate segments matching.

The overall score for pedestrian facilities in Clear Creek Elementary is 0.5, Very Poor.

A few segments where sidewalks or shoulders were matched to a road segment, but the resulting score was 0 are shown here.

Setting	Class	Name	shoulder R	shoulder L	standard sidewalk
Urban	Major Collector	OLD FRONTIER RD NW	3	3	6
Urban	Major Collector	OLD FRONTIER RD NW	3		6
Urban	Major Collector	OLD FRONTIER RD NW	3	3	6
Urban	Major Collector	OLD FRONTIER RD NW	3	3	6
Urban	Minor Arterial	CLEAR CREEK RD NW	8	8	6
Urban	Minor Arterial	CLEAR CREEK RD NW		8	6

A few good (score 10) segments are shown here.

Setting	Class	Name	shoulder R	shoulder L	standard shoulder
Rural	Local Access	NW HALF MILE RD	3	3	3
Rural	Minor Arterial	CLEAR CREEK RD NW	8	8	4
Rural	Minor Arterial	CLEAR CREEK RD NW	8	8	4
Rural	Minor Arterial	CLEAR CREEK RD NW	8	8	4
Rural	Minor Arterial	CLEAR CREEK RD NW	8	8	4
Rural	Minor Arterial	CLEAR CREEK RD NW	8	8	4

4.2.4.8 Central Kitsap High

Within this area, there are 6.6 centerline road miles; 3.1 miles of recorded sidewalk or shoulder (either side of road); and 4.1 miles where we could match the recorded sidewalk or shoulder to a road segment (either side of road). There are duplicate segments matching.

The overall score for pedestrian facilities in Central Kitsap High is 0.1, Very Poor.

A few segments where sidewalks or shoulders were matched to a road segment, but the resulting score was 0 are shown here.

Setting	Class	Name	shoulder R	shoulder L	standard sidewalk
Urban	Major Collector	OLD FRONTIER RD NW	2	3	6
Urban	Major Collector	OLD FRONTIER RD NW	2		6
Urban	Major Collector	OLD FRONTIER RD NW	2		6
Urban	Major Collector	OLD FRONTIER RD NW		3	6
Urban	Major Collector	OLD FRONTIER RD NW		3	6
Urban	Major Collector	OLD FRONTIER RD NW	3		6

A few good (score 10) segments are shown here.

Setting	Class	Name	sidewalk R	sidewalk L	shoulder R	shoulder L	standard sidewalk	standard shoulder
Urban	Local Access	WASHINGTON AVE NW	5	5			5
Urban	Local Access	WASHINGTON AVE NW	5	5			5

4.2.4.9 Central Kitsap Middle

Within this area, there are 7.3 centerline road miles; 3.4 miles of recorded sidewalk or shoulder (either side of road); and 4.5 miles where we could match the recorded sidewalk or shoulder to a road segment (either side of road). There are duplicate segments matching.

The overall score for pedestrian facilities in Central Kitsap Middle is 0.1, Very Poor.

A few segments where sidewalks or shoulders were matched to a road segment, but the resulting score was 0 are shown here.

Setting	Class	Name	shoulder R	shoulder L	standard sidewalk
Urban	Major Collector	OLD FRONTIER RD NW	2	3	6
Urban	Major Collector	OLD FRONTIER RD NW	2		6
Urban	Major Collector	OLD FRONTIER RD NW	2		6
Urban	Principal Arterial	SILVERDALE WAY NW		7	6
Urban	Principal Arterial	SILVERDALE WAY NW	7	7	6
Urban	Principal Arterial	SILVERDALE WAY NW	7	7	6

A few good (score 10) segments are shown here.

Setting	Class	Name	sidewalk R	sidewalk L	shoulder R	shoulder L	standard sidewalk	standard shoulder
Urban	Local Access	WASHINGTON AVE NW	5	5			5
Urban	Local Access	WASHINGTON AVE NW	5	5			5

4.2.4.10 Ridgetop Middle

Within this area, there are 6.9 centerline road miles; 2.3 miles of recorded sidewalk or shoulder (either side of road); and 2.8 miles where we could match the recorded sidewalk or shoulder to a road segment (either side of road). There are duplicate segments matching.

The overall score for pedestrian facilities in Ridgetop Middle is 0.1, Very Poor.

A few segments where sidewalks or shoulders were matched to a road segment, but the resulting score was 0 are shown here.

Setting	Class	Name	shoulder R	shoulder L	standard sidewalk
Urban	Minor Arterial	NW BUCKLIN HILL RD	3.0	5	6
Urban	Minor Arterial	NW BUCKLIN HILL RD	3.0	5	6
Urban	Minor Arterial	NW BUCKLIN HILL RD	3.0	5	6
Urban	Minor Arterial	NW BUCKLIN HILL RD	2.5	4	6
Urban	Principal Arterial	SILVERDALE WAY NW	7.0	7	6
Urban	Principal Arterial	SILVERDALE WAY NW	7.0	7	6

A few good (score 10) segments are shown here.

Setting	Class	Name	sidewalk R	sidewalk L	shoulder R	shoulder L	standard sidewalk	standard shoulder
Rural	Local Access	NW BUCKLIN CT			3	3		3
Rural	Local Access	NW BUCKLIN CT			3	3		3

4.2.4.11 Silver Ridge Elementary

Within this area, there are 6.4 centerline road miles; 2.0 miles of recorded sidewalk or shoulder (either side of road); and 2.5 miles where we could match the recorded sidewalk or shoulder to a road segment (either side of road). There are duplicate segments matching.

The overall score for pedestrian facilities in Silver Ridge Elementary is 0.1, Very Poor.

A few segments where sidewalks or shoulders were matched to a road segment, but the resulting score was 0 are shown here.

Setting	Class	Name	shoulder R	shoulder L	standard sidewalk
Urban	Minor Arterial	NW BUCKLIN HILL RD	3.0	5	6
Urban	Minor Arterial	NW BUCKLIN HILL RD	3.0	5	6
Urban	Minor Arterial	NW BUCKLIN HILL RD	3.0	5	6
Urban	Minor Arterial	NW BUCKLIN HILL RD	2.5	4	6
Urban	Principal Arterial	SILVERDALE WAY NW		7	6
Urban	Principal Arterial	SILVERDALE WAY NW	7.0	7	6

A few good (score 10) segments are shown here.

Setting	Class	Name	sidewalk R	sidewalk L	shoulder R	shoulder L	standard sidewalk	standard shoulder
Rural	Local Access	NW BUCKLIN CT			3	3		3
Rural	Local Access	NW BUCKLIN CT			3	3		3

4.2.4.12 Olympic High

Within this area, there are 6.1 centerline road miles; 2.1 miles of recorded sidewalk or shoulder (either side of road); and 2.3 miles where we could match the recorded sidewalk or shoulder to a road segment (either side of road). There are duplicate segments matching.

The overall score for pedestrian facilities in Olympic High is 0.0, Very Poor.

A few segments where sidewalks or shoulders were matched to a road segment, but the resulting score was 0 are shown here.

Setting	Class	Name	shoulder R	shoulder L	standard sidewalk
Urban	Minor Arterial	TRACYTON BLVD NW	4	4	6
Urban	Minor Arterial	TRACYTON BLVD NW	4	4	6
Urban	Minor Arterial	TRACYTON BLVD NW	4	4	6
Urban	Minor Arterial	NE MCWILLIAMS RD	3	5	6
Urban	Minor Arterial	TRACYTON BLVD NW		4	6
Urban	Minor Arterial	TRACYTON BLVD NW	4	4	6

4.2.4.13 Woodlands Elementary

Within this area, there are 11.2 centerline road miles; 4.0 miles of recorded sidewalk or shoulder (either side of road); and 4.7 miles where we could match the recorded sidewalk or shoulder to a road segment (either side of road). There are duplicate segments matching.

The overall score for pedestrian facilities in Woodlands Elementary is 0.1, Very Poor.

A few segments where sidewalks or shoulders were matched to a road segment, but the resulting score was 0 are shown here.

Setting	Class	Name	shoulder R	shoulder L	standard sidewalk
Urban	Minor Arterial	NE FAIRGROUNDS RD	15		6
Urban	Minor Arterial	NE FAIRGROUNDS RD	15		6
Urban	Minor Arterial	TRACYTON BLVD NW	4	4	6
Urban	Minor Arterial	TRACYTON BLVD NW	4	4	6
Urban	Minor Arterial	TRACYTON BLVD NW	4	4	6
Urban	Minor Arterial	NE MCWILLIAMS RD	3	5	6

A few good (score 10) segments are shown here.

Setting	Class	Name	shoulder R	shoulder L	standard shoulder
Rural	Minor Arterial	CENTRAL VALLEY RD NE	5	5	4
Rural	Minor Arterial	CENTRAL VALLEY RD NE	5	5	4
Rural	Local Access	NW BUCKLIN CT	3	3	3
Rural	Local Access	NW BUCKLIN CT	3	3	3
Rural	Minor Arterial	CENTRAL VALLEY RD NE	5	5	4
Rural	Minor Arterial	CENTRAL VALLEY RD NE	5	5	4

4.2.4.14 Fairview Middle

Within this area, there are 11.2 centerline road miles; 4.5 miles of recorded sidewalk or shoulder (either side of road); and 5.3 miles where we could match the recorded sidewalk or shoulder to a road segment (either side of road). There are duplicate segments matching.

The overall score for pedestrian facilities in Fairview Middle is 0.2, Very Poor.

A few segments where sidewalks or shoulders were matched to a road segment, but the resulting score was 0 are shown here.

Setting	Class	Name	shoulder R	shoulder L	standard sidewalk
Urban	Minor Arterial	NE FAIRGROUNDS RD	15.0		6
Urban	Minor Arterial	NE FAIRGROUNDS RD	15.0		6
Urban	Minor Arterial	NW BUCKLIN HILL RD	3.0	5	6
Urban	Minor Arterial	NW BUCKLIN HILL RD	3.0	5	6
Urban	Minor Arterial	NW BUCKLIN HILL RD	3.0	5	6
Urban	Minor Arterial	NW BUCKLIN HILL RD	2.5	4	6

A few good (score 10) segments are shown here.

Setting	Class	Name	shoulder R	shoulder L	standard shoulder
Rural	Minor Arterial	CENTRAL VALLEY RD NE	5	5	4
Rural	Minor Arterial	CENTRAL VALLEY RD NE	5	5	4
Rural	Minor Arterial	CENTRAL VALLEY RD NE	5	5	4
Rural	Minor Arterial	CENTRAL VALLEY RD NE	5	5	4
Rural	Minor Arterial	CENTRAL VALLEY RD NE	5	5	4
Rural	Minor Arterial	CENTRAL VALLEY RD NE	5	5	4

4.2.4.15 Esquire Hills Elementary

Within this area, there are 8.4 centerline road miles; 1.9 miles of recorded sidewalk or shoulder (either side of road); and 2.2 miles where we could match the recorded sidewalk or shoulder to a road segment (either side of road). There are duplicate segments matching.

The overall score for pedestrian facilities in Esquire Hills Elementary is 0.0, Very Poor.

A few segments where sidewalks or shoulders were matched to a road segment, but the resulting score was 0 are shown here.

Setting	Class	Name	shoulder R	standard sidewalk
Urban	Minor Arterial	NE FAIRGROUNDS RD	15	6
Urban	Minor Arterial	NE FAIRGROUNDS RD	15	6
Urban	Minor Arterial	NE FAIRGROUNDS RD	5	6
Urban	Minor Arterial	NE FAIRGROUNDS RD	5	6
Urban	Minor Arterial	NE FAIRGROUNDS RD	5	6
Urban	Minor Arterial	NE FAIRGROUNDS RD	5	6

4.2.4.16 Cottonwood Elementary

Within this area, there are 8.0 centerline road miles; 3.6 miles of recorded sidewalk or shoulder (either side of road); and 4.1 miles where we could match the recorded sidewalk or shoulder to a road segment (either side of road). There are duplicate segments matching.

The overall score for pedestrian facilities in Cottonwood Elementary is 0.2, Very Poor.

A few segments where sidewalks or shoulders were matched to a road segment, but the resulting score was 0 are shown here.

Setting	Class	Name	shoulder R	shoulder L	standard sidewalk
Urban	Minor Arterial	NE FAIRGROUNDS RD	15.0		6
Urban	Minor Arterial	NE FAIRGROUNDS RD	15.0		6
Urban	Minor Arterial	NW BUCKLIN HILL RD	3.0	5	6
Urban	Minor Arterial	NW BUCKLIN HILL RD	3.0	5	6
Urban	Minor Arterial	NW BUCKLIN HILL RD	3.0	5	6
Urban	Minor Arterial	NW BUCKLIN HILL RD	2.5	4	6

A few good (score 10) segments are shown here.

Setting	Class	Name	shoulder R	shoulder L	standard shoulder
Rural	Minor Arterial	CENTRAL VALLEY RD NE	5	5	4
Rural	Minor Arterial	CENTRAL VALLEY RD NE	5	5	4
Rural	Minor Arterial	CENTRAL VALLEY RD NE	5	5	4
Rural	Minor Arterial	CENTRAL VALLEY RD NE	5	5	4
Rural	Minor Arterial	CENTRAL VALLEY RD NE	5	5	4
Rural	Minor Arterial	CENTRAL VALLEY RD NE	5	5	4

4.2.4.17 Brownsville Elementary

Within this area, there are 3.0 centerline road miles; 0.3 miles of recorded sidewalk or shoulder (either side of road); and 0.4 miles where we could match the recorded sidewalk or shoulder to a road segment (either side of road). There are duplicate segments matching.

The overall score for pedestrian facilities in Brownsville Elementary is 0.0, Very Poor.

A few segments where sidewalks or shoulders were matched to a road segment, but the resulting score was 0 are shown here.

Setting	Class	Name	sidewalk R	sidewalk L	shoulder R	shoulder L	standard sidewalk	standard shoulder
Urban	Local Access	NE GLUDS POND ST			4	4	5

4.2.4.18 Green Mountain Elementary

Within this area, there are 2.9 centerline road miles; 1.6 miles of recorded sidewalk or shoulder (either side of road); and 1.8 miles where we could match the recorded sidewalk or shoulder to a road segment (either side of road). There are duplicate segments matching.

The overall score for pedestrian facilities in Green Mountain Elementary is 1.0, Poor.

A few good (score 10) segments are shown here.

Setting	Class	Name	shoulder R	shoulder L	standard shoulder
Rural	Major Collector	NW HOLLY RD	6	6	4
Rural	Major Collector	NW HOLLY RD	6	6	4
Rural	Major Collector	NW HOLLY RD	6	6	4
Rural	Major Collector	NW HOLLY RD	6	6	4
Rural	Major Collector	NW HOLLY RD	6	6	4
Rural	Major Collector	NW HOLLY RD	6	6	4

4.2.4.19 Marcus Whitman Junior High

Within this area, there are 8.6 centerline road miles; 2.3 miles of recorded sidewalk or shoulder (either side of road); and 3.0 miles where we could match the recorded sidewalk or shoulder to a road segment (either side of road). There are duplicate segments matching.

The overall score for pedestrian facilities in Marcus Whitman Junior High is 0.0, Very Poor.

A few segments where sidewalks or shoulders were matched to a road segment, but the resulting score was 0 are shown here.

Setting	Class	Name	shoulder R	shoulder L	standard sidewalk
Urban	Minor Arterial	SE MILE HILL DR	4	4	6
Urban	Minor Arterial	SE MILE HILL DR	4	4	6
Urban	Minor Arterial	SE MILE HILL DR	6	6	6
Urban	Minor Arterial	SE MILE HILL DR	4	4	6
Urban	Minor Arterial	SE MILE HILL DR	4	4	6
Urban	Minor Arterial	SE MILE HILL DR		8	6

4.2.4.20 Manchester Elementary

Within this area, there are 8.8 centerline road miles; 1.6 miles of recorded sidewalk or shoulder (either side of road); and 1.7 miles where we could match the recorded sidewalk or shoulder to a road segment (either side of road). There are duplicate segments matching.

The overall score for pedestrian facilities in Manchester Elementary is 0.3, Very Poor.

A few good (score 10) segments are shown here.

Setting	Class	Name	shoulder R	shoulder L	standard shoulder
Rural	Minor Arterial	SE SOUTHWORTH DR	5	4	4
Rural	Minor Arterial	SE SOUTHWORTH DR	5	4	4
Rural	Minor Arterial	SE MILE HILL DR	8	8	4
Rural	Minor Arterial	SE MILE HILL DR	8	8	4
Rural	Minor Arterial	SE MILE HILL DR	8	8	4
Rural	Minor Arterial	COLCHESTER DR SE	6	4	4

4.2.4.21 Orchard Heights Elementary

Within this area, there are 9.7 centerline road miles; 2.7 miles of recorded sidewalk or shoulder (either side of road); and 3.4 miles where we could match the recorded sidewalk or shoulder to a road segment (either side of road). There are duplicate segments matching.

The overall score for pedestrian facilities in Orchard Heights Elementary is 0.1, Very Poor.

A few segments where sidewalks or shoulders were matched to a road segment, but the resulting score was 0 are shown here.

Setting	Class	Name	shoulder R	shoulder L	standard sidewalk
Urban	Minor Arterial	SE MILE HILL DR	4	4	6
Urban	Minor Arterial	SE MILE HILL DR	4	4	6
Urban	Minor Arterial	SE MILE HILL DR	4	4	6
Urban	Minor Arterial	SE MILE HILL DR	4	4	6
Urban	Minor Arterial	SE MILE HILL DR	4	4	6
Urban	Minor Arterial	SE MILE HILL DR	8	8	6

A few good (score 10) segments are shown here.

Setting	Class	Name	sidewalk R	sidewalk L	shoulder R	shoulder L	standard sidewalk	standard shoulder
Rural	Minor Arterial	SE MILE HILL DR			8	8		4
Rural	Major Collector	SE SALMONBERRY RD			6	6		4

4.2.4.22 East Port Orchard Elementary

Within this area, there are 5.0 centerline road miles; 1.5 miles of recorded sidewalk or shoulder (either side of road); and 1.8 miles where we could match the recorded sidewalk or shoulder to a road segment (either side of road). There are duplicate segments matching.

The overall score for pedestrian facilities in East Port Orchard Elementary is 0.0, Very Poor.

A few segments where sidewalks or shoulders were matched to a road segment, but the resulting score was 0 are shown here.

Setting	Class	Name	shoulder R	shoulder L	standard sidewalk
Urban	Local Access	SE FAY CT	4		5
Urban	Minor Arterial	SE LUND AVE	8		6
Urban	Minor Arterial	SE LUND AVE	8	8	6
Urban	Minor Arterial	SE LUND AVE	8	8	6
Urban	Local Access	PIONEER PL SE	1	1	5
Urban	Minor Arterial	SE LUND AVE	8		6

4.2.4.23 Sunnyslope Elementary

This area does not have known sidewalks or shoulders.

Within this area, there are 1.9 centerline road miles; 0 miles of recorded sidewalk or shoulder (either side of road); and 0 miles where we could match the recorded sidewalk or shoulder to a road segment (either side of road). There are duplicate segments matching.

The overall score for pedestrian facilities in Sunnyslope Elementary is 0.0, Nothing.

4.2.4.24 Hidden Creek Elementary

Within this area, there are 6.1 centerline road miles; 3.6 miles of recorded sidewalk or shoulder (either side of road); and 4.2 miles where we could match the recorded sidewalk or shoulder to a road segment (either side of road). There are duplicate segments matching.

The overall score for pedestrian facilities in Hidden Creek Elementary is 0.1, Very Poor.

A few segments where sidewalks or shoulders were matched to a road segment, but the resulting score was 0 are shown here.

Setting	Class	Name	shoulder R	shoulder L	standard sidewalk
Urban	Minor Arterial	BETHEL RD SE	4	4	6
Urban	Minor Arterial	BETHEL RD SE	4	4	6
Urban	Minor Arterial	BETHEL RD SE	4	4	6
Urban	Minor Arterial	BETHEL RD SE	4	4	6
Urban	Minor Arterial	BETHEL RD SE	4	4	6
Urban	Major Collector	PHILLIPS RD SE	5	5	6

4.2.4.25 South Colby Elementary

Within this area, there are 3.9 centerline road miles; 2.0 miles of recorded sidewalk or shoulder (either side of road); and 2.1 miles where we could match the recorded sidewalk or shoulder to a road segment (either side of road). There are duplicate segments matching.

The overall score for pedestrian facilities in South Colby Elementary is 0.8, Very Poor.

A few good (score 10) segments are shown here.

Setting	Class	Name	sidewalk R	sidewalk L	shoulder R	shoulder L	standard shoulder
Rural	Local Access	SE JOHN ST	3	3			3
Rural	Major Collector	BANNER RD SE			5	5	4
Rural	Major Collector	BANNER RD SE			5	5	4
Rural	Major Collector	BANNER RD SE			5	5	4
Rural	Major Collector	SE SOUTHWORTH DR			5	4	4
Rural	Minor Arterial	SE SOUTHWORTH DR			5	4	4

4.2.4.26 John Sedgwick Middle

Within this area, there are 3.2 centerline road miles; 1.0 miles of recorded sidewalk or shoulder (either side of road); and 1.1 miles where we could match the recorded sidewalk or shoulder to a road segment (either side of road). There are duplicate segments matching.

The overall score for pedestrian facilities in John Sedgwick Middle is 0.5, Very Poor.

A few good (score 10) segments are shown here.

Setting	Class	Name	shoulder R	shoulder L	standard shoulder
Rural	Major Collector	BANNER RD SE	5	5	4
Rural	Major Collector	BANNER RD SE	5	5	4
Rural	Major Collector	BANNER RD SE	5	5	4
Rural	Major Collector	BANNER RD SE	5	5	4
Rural	Major Collector	BANNER RD SE	5	5	4
Rural	Minor Arterial	SE SOUTHWORTH DR	5	5	4

4.2.4.27 Mullenix Ridge Elementary

Within this area, there are 5.2 centerline road miles; 3.2 miles of recorded sidewalk or shoulder (either side of road); and 4.1 miles where we could match the recorded sidewalk or shoulder to a road segment (either side of road). There are duplicate segments matching.

The overall score for pedestrian facilities in Mullenix Ridge Elementary is 1.0, Very Poor.

A few segments where sidewalks or shoulders were matched to a road segment, but the resulting score was 0 are shown here.

Setting	Class	Name	shoulder R	shoulder L	standard sidewalk
Urban	Local Access	SE SPRING CREEK RD		2	5
Urban	Local Access	SE SPRING CREEK RD	2		5
Urban	Major Collector	PHILLIPS RD SE	5	5	6
Urban	Major Collector	PHILLIPS RD SE	5	5	6
Urban	Major Collector	PHILLIPS RD SE	5	5	6
Urban	Major Collector	PHILLIPS RD SE	5	5	6

A few good (score 10) segments are shown here.

Setting	Class	Name	shoulder R	shoulder L	standard shoulder
Rural	Minor Arterial	BETHEL BURLEY RD SE	6	6	4
Rural	Minor Arterial	BETHEL BURLEY RD SE	6	6	4
Rural	Minor Arterial	BETHEL BURLEY RD SE	6	6	4
Rural	Minor Arterial	BETHEL BURLEY RD SE	6	6	4
Rural	Minor Arterial	SE MULLENIX RD	4	4	4
Rural	Minor Arterial	SE MULLENIX RD	4	4	4

4.2.4.28 Olalla Elementary

This area does not have known sidewalks or shoulders.

Within this area, there are 2.8 centerline road miles; 0 miles of recorded sidewalk or shoulder (either side of road); and 0 miles where we could match the recorded sidewalk or shoulder to a road segment (either side of road). There are duplicate segments matching.

The overall score for pedestrian facilities in Olalla Elementary is 0.0, Nothing.

4.2.4.29 Burley Glenwood Elementary

Within this area, there are 5.6 centerline road miles; 2.1 miles of recorded sidewalk or shoulder (either side of road); and 2.5 miles where we could match the recorded sidewalk or shoulder to a road segment (either side of road). There are duplicate segments matching.

The overall score for pedestrian facilities in Burley Glenwood Elementary is 0.8, Very Poor.

A few good (score 10) segments are shown here.

Setting	Class	Name	sidewalk R	sidewalk L	shoulder R	shoulder L	standard shoulder
Rural	Local Access	SW BISHOP CT	3	3			3
Rural	Major Collector	BETHEL BURLEY RD SE			5	5	4
Rural	Major Collector	BETHEL BURLEY RD SE			5	5	4
Rural	Major Collector	BETHEL BURLEY RD SE			5	5	4
Rural	Major Collector	BETHEL BURLEY RD SE			5	5	4
Rural	Major Collector	BETHEL BURLEY RD SE			5	5	4

4.2.4.30 Discovery Alternative High

Within this area, there are 9.3 centerline road miles; 2.5 miles of recorded sidewalk or shoulder (either side of road); and 3.1 miles where we could match the recorded sidewalk or shoulder to a road segment (either side of road). There are duplicate segments matching.

The overall score for pedestrian facilities in Discovery Alternative High is 0.0, Very Poor.

A few segments where sidewalks or shoulders were matched to a road segment, but the resulting score was 0 are shown here.

Setting	Class	Name	shoulder R	shoulder L	standard sidewalk
Urban	Minor Arterial	SE MILE HILL DR	4	4	6
Urban	Minor Arterial	SE MILE HILL DR	4	4	6
Urban	Minor Arterial	SE MILE HILL DR	4	4	6
Urban	Minor Arterial	SE MILE HILL DR	4	4	6
Urban	Minor Arterial	SE MILE HILL DR	4	4	6
Urban	Minor Arterial	SE MILE HILL DR	8	8	6

A few good (score 10) segments are shown here.

Setting	Class	Name	sidewalk R	sidewalk L	shoulder R	shoulder L	standard sidewalk	standard shoulder
Rural	Minor Arterial	SE MILE HILL DR			8	8		4
Rural	Major Collector	SE SALMONBERRY RD			6	6		4

4.2.4.31 Silverdale Elementary

Within this area, there are 5.1 centerline road miles; 2.5 miles of recorded sidewalk or shoulder (either side of road); and 3.2 miles where we could match the recorded sidewalk or shoulder to a road segment (either side of road). There are duplicate segments matching.

The overall score for pedestrian facilities in Silverdale Elementary is 0.1, Very Poor.

A few segments where sidewalks or shoulders were matched to a road segment, but the resulting score was 0 are shown here.

Setting	Class	Name	shoulder R	shoulder L	standard sidewalk
Urban	Major Collector	OLD FRONTIER RD NW	3		6
Urban	Major Collector	PROVOST RD NW	6	6	6
Urban	Major Collector	PROVOST RD NW	6		6
Urban	Major Collector	OLD FRONTIER RD NW		3	6
Urban	Major Collector	PROVOST RD NW	6	6	6
Urban	Major Collector	PROVOST RD NW	6	6	6

A few good (score 10) segments are shown here.

Setting	Class	Name	shoulder R	shoulder L	standard shoulder
Rural	Minor Arterial	NW NEWBERRY HILL RD	8	8	4
Rural	Minor Arterial	NW NEWBERRY HILL RD	8	8	4
Rural	Minor Arterial	NW NEWBERRY HILL RD	8	8	4
Rural	Minor Arterial	NW NEWBERRY HILL RD	8	8	4
Rural	Minor Arterial	NW NEWBERRY HILL RD	8	8	4

4.2.4.32 Klahowya Secondary

Within this area, there are 1.9 centerline road miles; 1.1 miles of recorded sidewalk or shoulder (either side of road); and 1.6 miles where we could match the recorded sidewalk or shoulder to a road segment (either side of road). There are duplicate segments matching.

The overall score for pedestrian facilities in Klahowya Secondary is 0.9, Very Poor.

A few segments where sidewalks or shoulders were matched to a road segment, but the resulting score was 0 are shown here.

Setting	Class	Name	shoulder R	shoulder L	standard sidewalk
Urban	Minor Arterial	NW NEWBERRY HILL RD	8		6
Urban	Minor Arterial	NW NEWBERRY HILL RD	8	8	6
Urban	Minor Arterial	NW NEWBERRY HILL RD	8	8	6
Urban	Minor Arterial	NW NEWBERRY HILL RD		8	6

A few good (score 10) segments are shown here.

Setting	Class	Name	shoulder R	shoulder L	standard shoulder
Rural	Minor Arterial	NW NEWBERRY HILL RD	8	8	4
Rural	Minor Arterial	NW NEWBERRY HILL RD	8	8	4
Rural	Minor Arterial	NW NEWBERRY HILL RD	8	8	4
Rural	Minor Arterial	NW NEWBERRY HILL RD	8	8	4
Rural	Minor Arterial	NW NEWBERRY HILL RD	8	8	4
Rural	Minor Arterial	NW NEWBERRY HILL RD	8	8	4

4.2.4.33 Pinecrest Elementary

Within this area, there are 7.5 centerline road miles; 1.6 miles of recorded sidewalk or shoulder (either side of road); and 2.0 miles where we could match the recorded sidewalk or shoulder to a road segment (either side of road). There are duplicate segments matching.

The overall score for pedestrian facilities in Pinecrest Elementary is 0.1, Very Poor.

A few segments where sidewalks or shoulders were matched to a road segment, but the resulting score was 0 are shown here.

Setting	Class	Name	shoulder R	shoulder L	standard sidewalk
Urban	Minor Arterial	NE MCWILLIAMS RD	3	5	6
Urban	Minor Arterial	NE MCWILLIAMS RD	3		6
Urban	Minor Arterial	NE MCWILLIAMS RD	3	5	6
Urban	Local Access	NW TRACY AVE	8	8	5
Urban	Local Access	NW TRACY AVE	8	8	5
Urban	Local Access	NW TRACY AVE	8	8	5

A few good (score 10) segments are shown here.

Setting	Class	Name	sidewalk R	sidewalk L	shoulder R	shoulder L	standard sidewalk	standard shoulder
Urban	Local Access	NE NANTUCKET ST	5	5			5
Urban	Local Access	NE NANTUCKET ST	5	5			5

4.2.4.34 Emerald Heights Elementary

Within this area, there are 4.9 centerline road miles; 1.9 miles of recorded sidewalk or shoulder (either side of road); and 2.2 miles where we could match the recorded sidewalk or shoulder to a road segment (either side of road). There are duplicate segments matching.

The overall score for pedestrian facilities in Emerald Heights Elementary is 0.1, Very Poor.

A few segments where sidewalks or shoulders were matched to a road segment, but the resulting score was 0 are shown here.

Setting	Class	Name	shoulder R	shoulder L	standard sidewalk
Urban	Principal Arterial	SILVERDALE WAY NW	8		6
Urban	Local Access	NW ISLAND LAKE RD		4	5
Urban	Local Access	NW ISLAND LAKE RD	4	4	5
Urban	Principal Arterial	SILVERDALE WAY NW	8	8	6
Urban	Minor Arterial	SILVERDALE WAY NW	8	8	6
Urban	Minor Arterial	SILVERDALE WAY NW	8	8	6

4.2.4.35 Hilder Pearson Elementary

Within this area, there are 4.5 centerline road miles; 2.8 miles of recorded sidewalk or shoulder (either side of road); and 3.2 miles where we could match the recorded sidewalk or shoulder to a road segment (either side of road). There are duplicate segments matching.

The overall score for pedestrian facilities in Hilder Pearson Elementary is 0.7, Very Poor.

A few segments where sidewalks or shoulders were matched to a road segment, but the resulting score was 0 are shown here.

Setting	Class	Name	shoulder R	shoulder L	standard sidewalk
Urban	Minor Arterial	CENTRAL VALLEY RD NW		5	6
Urban	Minor Arterial	SILVERDALE WAY NW	8	8	6
Urban	Minor Arterial	SILVERDALE WAY NW	8	8	6
Urban	Minor Arterial	SILVERDALE WAY NW	8	8	6
Urban	Minor Arterial	SILVERDALE WAY NW		8	6
Urban	Minor Arterial	CENTRAL VALLEY RD NW	5		6

A few good (score 10) segments are shown here.

Setting	Class	Name	shoulder R	shoulder L	standard shoulder
Rural	Local Access	CASSIE PL NW	3	3	3
Rural	Minor Arterial	VIKING WAY NW	7	7	4
Rural	Minor Arterial	VIKING WAY NW	7	7	4
Rural	Minor Arterial	VIKING WAY NW	7	7	4
Rural	Minor Arterial	VIKING WAY NW	7	7	4
Rural	Minor Arterial	CENTRAL VALLEY RD NW	5	5	4

4.2.4.36 Richard Gordon Elementary

Within this area, there are 3.3 centerline road miles; 2.4 miles of recorded sidewalk or shoulder (either side of road); and 2.9 miles where we could match the recorded sidewalk or shoulder to a road segment (either side of road). There are duplicate segments matching.

The overall score for pedestrian facilities in Richard Gordon Elementary is 0.1, Very Poor.

A few segments where sidewalks or shoulders were matched to a road segment, but the resulting score was 0 are shown here.

Setting	Class	Name	shoulder R	shoulder L	standard sidewalk
Urban	Local Access	BARBER CUT OFF RD NE	6	2	5
Urban	Local Access	BARBER CUT OFF RD NE	6	2	5
Urban	Local Access	BARBER CUT OFF RD NE	6	2	5
Urban	Local Access	BARBER CUT OFF RD NE	6	2	5
Urban	Major Collector	NE WEST KINGSTON RD		6	6
Urban	Major Collector	NE WEST KINGSTON RD	6	6	6

4.2.4.37 Kingston High

Within this area, there are 2.8 centerline road miles; 2.8 miles of recorded sidewalk or shoulder (either side of road); and 3.4 miles where we could match the recorded sidewalk or shoulder to a road segment (either side of road). There are duplicate segments matching.

The overall score for pedestrian facilities in Kingston High is 0.3, Very Poor.

A few segments where sidewalks or shoulders were matched to a road segment, but the resulting score was 0 are shown here.

Setting	Class	Name	shoulder R	shoulder L	standard sidewalk
Urban	Major Collector	NE WEST KINGSTON RD	10	10	6
Urban	Major Collector	NE WEST KINGSTON RD	10	10	6
Urban	Local Access	BARBER CUT OFF RD NE	6	2	5
Urban	Local Access	BARBER CUT OFF RD NE	6	2	5
Urban	Local Access	BARBER CUT OFF RD NE	6	2	5
Urban	Local Access	BARBER CUT OFF RD NE	6	2	5

A few good (score 10) segments are shown here.

Setting	Class	Name	sidewalk R	sidewalk L	shoulder R	shoulder L	standard sidewalk	standard shoulder
Rural	Major Collector	NE WEST KINGSTON RD			10	10		4

4.2.4.38 Chief Kitsap Academy

Within this area, there are 2.1 centerline road miles; 0.3 miles of recorded sidewalk or shoulder (either side of road); and 0.4 miles where we could match the recorded sidewalk or shoulder to a road segment (either side of road). There are duplicate segments matching.

The overall score for pedestrian facilities in Chief Kitsap Academy is 0.0, Very Poor.

4.2.4.39 Barker Creek Community School

Within this area, there are 9.6 centerline road miles; 2.2 miles of recorded sidewalk or shoulder (either side of road); and 2.7 miles where we could match the recorded sidewalk or shoulder to a road segment (either side of road). There are duplicate segments matching.

The overall score for pedestrian facilities in Barker Creek Community School is 0.0, Very Poor.

A few segments where sidewalks or shoulders were matched to a road segment, but the resulting score was 0 are shown here.

Setting	Class	Name	shoulder R	shoulder L	standard sidewalk
Urban	Minor Arterial	NE FAIRGROUNDS RD	15		6
Urban	Minor Arterial	NE FAIRGROUNDS RD	15		6
Urban	Minor Arterial	NE MCWILLIAMS RD	3	5	6
Urban	Minor Arterial	NE MCWILLIAMS RD	3		6
Urban	Minor Arterial	NE MCWILLIAMS RD	3	5	6
Urban	Minor Arterial	NE MCWILLIAMS RD		5	6

4.2.5 Public Libraries

Kitsap County has 10 Public Libraries; however, only 5 are outside of city limits. Here they are shown with a 30 minute walking distance.

4.2.5.1 Kingston KRL

Within this area, there are 3.9 centerline road miles; 2.8 miles of recorded sidewalk or shoulder (either side of road); and 3.2 miles where we could match the recorded sidewalk or shoulder to a road segment (either side of road). There are duplicate segments matching.

The overall score for pedestrian facilities in Kingston KRL is 0.2, Very Poor.

A few segments where sidewalks or shoulders were matched to a road segment, but the resulting score was 0 are shown here.

Setting	Class	Name	shoulder R	shoulder L	standard sidewalk
Urban	Local Access	BARBER CUT OFF RD NE	6	2	5
Urban	Local Access	BARBER CUT OFF RD NE	6	2	5
Urban	Local Access	BARBER CUT OFF RD NE	6	2	5
Urban	Local Access	BARBER CUT OFF RD NE	6	2	5
Urban	Major Collector	NE WEST KINGSTON RD		6	6
Urban	Major Collector	NE WEST KINGSTON RD	6	6	6

A few good (score 10) segments are shown here.

Setting	Class	Name	sidewalk R	sidewalk L	shoulder R	shoulder L	standard sidewalk	standard shoulder
Rural	Local Access	MCINTOSH LOOP NE			3	3		3
Rural	Local Access	NE APPLE TREE POINT LN			5	5		3

4.2.5.2 Little Boston KRL

Within this area, there are 1.1 centerline road miles; 1.9 miles of recorded sidewalk or shoulder (either side of road); and 2.0 miles where we could match the recorded sidewalk or shoulder to a road segment (either side of road). There are duplicate segments matching.

The overall score for pedestrian facilities in Little Boston KRL is 4.4, Minimum.

A few good (score 10) segments are shown here.

Setting	Class	Name	shoulder R	shoulder L	standard shoulder
Rural	Minor Collector	LITTLE BOSTON RD NE	6	6	3
Rural	Local Access	LITTLE BOSTON RD NE	5	5	3
Rural	Local Access	LITTLE BOSTON RD NE	5	5	3
Rural	Local Access	LITTLE BOSTON RD NE	5	5	3
Rural	Local Access	LITTLE BOSTON RD NE	5	5	3
Rural	Local Access	LITTLE BOSTON RD NE	5	5	3

4.2.5.3 Manchester KRL

Within this area, there are 5.8 centerline road miles; 1.0 miles of recorded sidewalk or shoulder (either side of road); and 1.1 miles where we could match the recorded sidewalk or shoulder to a road segment (either side of road). There are duplicate segments matching.

The overall score for pedestrian facilities in Manchester KRL is 0.3, Very Poor.

A few good (score 10) segments are shown here.

Setting	Class	Name	shoulder R	shoulder L	standard shoulder
Rural	Minor Arterial	COLCHESTER DR SE	6	4	4
Rural	Minor Arterial	COLCHESTER DR SE	6	4	4
Rural	Minor Arterial	COLCHESTER DR SE	6	4	4
Rural	Minor Arterial	COLCHESTER DR SE	6	4	4
Rural	Minor Arterial	COLCHESTER DR SE	6	4	4
Rural	Minor Arterial	COLCHESTER DR E	6	4	4

4.2.5.4 Silverdale KRL

Within this area, there are 7.7 centerline road miles; 3.9 miles of recorded sidewalk or shoulder (either side of road); and 5.1 miles where we could match the recorded sidewalk or shoulder to a road segment (either side of road). There are duplicate segments matching.

The overall score for pedestrian facilities in Silverdale KRL is 0.1, Very Poor.

A few segments where sidewalks or shoulders were matched to a road segment, but the resulting score was 0 are shown here.

Setting	Class	Name	shoulder R	shoulder L	standard sidewalk
Urban	Major Collector	OLD FRONTIER RD NW	2	3	6
Urban	Major Collector	OLD FRONTIER RD NW	2		6
Urban	Major Collector	OLD FRONTIER RD NW	2		6
Urban	Principal Arterial	SILVERDALE WAY NW	7	7	6
Urban	Principal Arterial	SILVERDALE WAY NW	7	7	6
Urban	Principal Arterial	SILVERDALE WAY NW	7	7	6

A few good (score 10) segments are shown here.

Setting	Class	Name	sidewalk R	sidewalk L	shoulder R	shoulder L	standard sidewalk	standard shoulder
Urban	Local Access	WASHINGTON AVE NW	5	5			5
Urban	Local Access	WASHINGTON AVE NW	5	5			5

4.2.5.5 Tracyton Community Library

Within this area, there are 5.9 centerline road miles; 1.2 miles of recorded sidewalk or shoulder (either side of road); and 1.6 miles where we could match the recorded sidewalk or shoulder to a road segment (either side of road). There are duplicate segments matching.

The overall score for pedestrian facilities in Tracyton Community Library is 0.1, Very Poor.

A few segments where sidewalks or shoulders were matched to a road segment, but the resulting score was 0 are shown here.

Setting	Class	Name	shoulder R	shoulder L	standard sidewalk
Urban	Minor Arterial	NE MCWILLIAMS RD	3	5	6
Urban	Minor Arterial	NE MCWILLIAMS RD	3		6
Urban	Minor Arterial	NE MCWILLIAMS RD	3	5	6
Urban	Local Access	NW TRACY AVE	8	8	5
Urban	Local Access	NW TRACY AVE	8	8	5
Urban	Local Access	NW TRACY AVE	8	8	5

A few good (score 10) segments are shown here.

Setting	Class	Name	sidewalk R	sidewalk L	shoulder R	shoulder L	standard sidewalk	standard shoulder
Urban	Local Access	NE NANTUCKET ST	5	5			5

4.2.6 Transit Centers

Kitsap County has 18 Transit Centers; however, only 11 are outside of city limits. Here they are shown with a 30 minute walking distance.

4.2.6.1 West Bremerton Transit Center

Within this area, there are 3.1 centerline road miles; 0.5 miles of recorded sidewalk or shoulder (either side of road); and 0.6 miles where we could match the recorded sidewalk or shoulder to a road segment (either side of road). There are duplicate segments matching.

The overall score for pedestrian facilities in West Bremerton Transit Center is 0.0, Very Poor.

A few segments where sidewalks or shoulders were matched to a road segment, but the resulting score was 0 are shown here.

Setting	Class	Name	shoulder R	shoulder L	standard sidewalk
Urban	Local Access	CHARLESTON BEACH RD W	2	2	5
Urban	Local Access	CHARLESTON BEACH RD W	2	2	5
Urban	Minor Arterial	S NATIONAL AVE	6	6	6
Urban	Minor Arterial	S NATIONAL AVE	6	6	6
Urban	Minor Arterial	S NATIONAL AVE	6	6	6
Urban	Minor Arterial	S NATIONAL AVE	6		6

4.2.6.2 Silverdale Transit Center

Within this area, there are 4.0 centerline road miles; 1.3 miles of recorded sidewalk or shoulder (either side of road); and 1.8 miles where we could match the recorded sidewalk or shoulder to a road segment (either side of road). There are duplicate segments matching.

The overall score for pedestrian facilities in Silverdale Transit Center is 0.0, Very Poor.

A few segments where sidewalks or shoulders were matched to a road segment, but the resulting score was 0 are shown here.

Setting	Class	Name	shoulder R	shoulder L	standard sidewalk
Urban	Local Access	SCHOLD RD NW	3		5
Urban	Local Access	SCHOLD RD NW	3	4	5
Urban	Principal Arterial	SILVERDALE WAY NW	8		6
Urban	Principal Arterial	SILVERDALE WAY NW	8		6
Urban	Principal Arterial	SILVERDALE WAY NW	7	7	6
Urban	Principal Arterial	SILVERDALE WAY NW	7	7	6

4.2.6.3 Kingston Ferry Terminal

Within this area, there are 3.5 centerline road miles; 2.5 miles of recorded sidewalk or shoulder (either side of road); and 3.0 miles where we could match the recorded sidewalk or shoulder to a road segment (either side of road). There are duplicate segments matching.

The overall score for pedestrian facilities in Kingston Ferry Terminal is 0.1, Very Poor.

A few segments where sidewalks or shoulders were matched to a road segment, but the resulting score was 0 are shown here.

Setting	Class	Name	shoulder R	shoulder L	standard sidewalk
Urban	Local Access	BARBER CUT OFF RD NE	6	2	5
Urban	Local Access	BARBER CUT OFF RD NE	6	2	5
Urban	Local Access	BARBER CUT OFF RD NE	6	2	5
Urban	Local Access	BARBER CUT OFF RD NE	6	2	5
Urban	Major Collector	NE WEST KINGSTON RD		6	6
Urban	Major Collector	NE WEST KINGSTON RD	6	6	6

A few good (score 10) segments are shown here.

Setting	Class	Name	sidewalk R	sidewalk L	shoulder R	shoulder L	standard sidewalk	standard shoulder
Rural	Local Access	MCINTOSH LOOP NE			3	3		3
Rural	Local Access	NE APPLE TREE POINT LN			5	5		3

4.2.6.4 Southworth Ferry Terminal

Within this area, there are 2.1 centerline road miles; 0.9 miles of recorded sidewalk or shoulder (either side of road); and 1.0 miles where we could match the recorded sidewalk or shoulder to a road segment (either side of road). There are duplicate segments matching.

The overall score for pedestrian facilities in Southworth Ferry Terminal is 0.7, Very Poor.

A few good (score 10) segments are shown here.

Setting	Class	Name	shoulder R	shoulder L	standard shoulder
Rural	Minor Arterial	SE SOUTHWORTH DR	5	5	4
Rural	Minor Arterial	SE SOUTHWORTH DR	5	5	4
Rural	Minor Arterial	SE SOUTHWORTH DR	5	5	4
Rural	Minor Arterial	SE SOUTHWORTH DR	5	5	4
Rural	Minor Arterial	SE SOUTHWORTH DR	5	5	4
Rural	Minor Arterial	SE SOUTHWORTH DR	5	5	4

4.2.6.5 Hwy. 305 & Suquamish Way

Within this area, there are 2.2 centerline road miles; 0.8 miles of recorded sidewalk or shoulder (either side of road); and 1.0 miles where we could match the recorded sidewalk or shoulder to a road segment (either side of road). There are duplicate segments matching.

The overall score for pedestrian facilities in Hwy. 305 & Suquamish Way is 0.7, Very Poor.

A few good (score 10) segments are shown here.

Setting	Class	Name	shoulder R	shoulder L	standard shoulder
Rural	Major Collector	SUQUAMISH WAY NE	5	5	4
Rural	Major Collector	SUQUAMISH WAY NE	5	5	4
Rural	Major Collector	SUQUAMISH WAY NE	5	5	4
Rural	Minor Arterial	SUQUAMISH WAY NE	5	5	4
Rural	Major Collector	SUQUAMISH WAY NE	7	6	4

4.2.6.6 McWilliams Park & Ride

Within this area, there are 10.7 centerline road miles; 2.4 miles of recorded sidewalk or shoulder (either side of road); and 2.9 miles where we could match the recorded sidewalk or shoulder to a road segment (either side of road). There are duplicate segments matching.

The overall score for pedestrian facilities in McWilliams Park & Ride is 0.0, Very Poor.

A few segments where sidewalks or shoulders were matched to a road segment, but the resulting score was 0 are shown here.

Setting	Class	Name	shoulder R	shoulder L	standard sidewalk
Urban	Minor Arterial	NE FAIRGROUNDS RD	15		6
Urban	Minor Arterial	NE FAIRGROUNDS RD	15		6
Urban	Minor Arterial	NE MCWILLIAMS RD	3	5	6
Urban	Minor Arterial	NE MCWILLIAMS RD	3		6
Urban	Minor Arterial	NE MCWILLIAMS RD	3	5	6
Urban	Minor Arterial	NE MCWILLIAMS RD		5	6

4.2.6.7 Suquamish Park & Ride

Within this area, there are 5.6 centerline road miles; 1.3 miles of recorded sidewalk or shoulder (either side of road); and 1.8 miles where we could match the recorded sidewalk or shoulder to a road segment (either side of road). There are duplicate segments matching.

The overall score for pedestrian facilities in Suquamish Park & Ride is 0.5, Very Poor.

A few good (score 10) segments are shown here.

Setting	Class	Name	shoulder R	shoulder L	standard shoulder
Rural	Major Collector	SUQUAMISH WAY NE	5	5	4
Rural	Major Collector	SUQUAMISH WAY NE	5	5	4
Rural	Major Collector	SUQUAMISH WAY NE	5	5	4
Rural	Minor Arterial	AUGUSTA AVE NE	5	5	4
Rural	Minor Arterial	SUQUAMISH WAY NE	7	6	4
Rural	Minor Arterial	SUQUAMISH WAY NE	7	6	4

4.2.6.8 Port Orchard Wal-Mart

Within this area, there are 5.2 centerline road miles; 2.4 miles of recorded sidewalk or shoulder (either side of road); and 2.9 miles where we could match the recorded sidewalk or shoulder to a road segment (either side of road). There are duplicate segments matching.

The overall score for pedestrian facilities in Port Orchard Wal-Mart is 0.0, Very Poor.

A few segments where sidewalks or shoulders were matched to a road segment, but the resulting score was 0 are shown here.

Setting	Class	Name	shoulder R	shoulder L	standard sidewalk
Urban	Minor Arterial	BETHEL RD SE	4	4	6
Urban	Minor Arterial	BETHEL RD SE	4	4	6
Urban	Minor Arterial	BETHEL RD SE	4	4	6
Urban	Minor Arterial	BETHEL RD SE	4	4	6
Urban	Local Access	SE FAY CT	4		5
Urban	Minor Arterial	SE LUND AVE	8		6

4.2.6.9 George’s Corner Park & Ride

Within this area, there are 2.2 centerline road miles; 1.6 miles of recorded sidewalk or shoulder (either side of road); and 1.8 miles where we could match the recorded sidewalk or shoulder to a road segment (either side of road). There are duplicate segments matching.

The overall score for pedestrian facilities in George’s Corner Park & Ride is 1.1, Poor.

A few segments where sidewalks or shoulders were matched to a road segment, but the resulting score was 0 are shown here.

Setting	Class	Name	sidewalk R	sidewalk L	shoulder R	shoulder L	standard sidewalk	standard shoulder
Urban	Major Collector	NE WEST KINGSTON RD			10	10	6
Urban	Local Access	BARBER CUT OFF RD NE			6	2	5

A few good (score 10) segments are shown here.

Setting	Class	Name	shoulder R	shoulder L	standard shoulder
Rural	Major Collector	HANSVILLE RD NE	7	8	4
Rural	Major Collector	HANSVILLE RD NE	7	8	4
Rural	Major Collector	HANSVILLE RD NE	7	8	4
Rural	Major Collector	HANSVILLE RD NE	7	8	4
Rural	Major Collector	HANSVILLE RD NE	7	8	4
Rural	Major Collector	HANSVILLE RD NE	7	8	4

4.2.6.10 Miller Bay & Indianola

Within this area, there are 1.8 centerline road miles; 0.9 miles of recorded sidewalk or shoulder (either side of road); and 1.5 miles where we could match the recorded sidewalk or shoulder to a road segment (either side of road). There are duplicate segments matching.

The overall score for pedestrian facilities in Miller Bay & Indianola is 1.6, Poor.

A few good (score 10) segments are shown here.

Setting	Class	Name	shoulder R	shoulder L	standard shoulder
Rural	Major Collector	MILLER BAY RD NE	8	8	4
Rural	Major Collector	MILLER BAY RD NE	8	8	4
Rural	Minor Collector	INDIANOLA RD NE	4	4	3
Rural	Major Collector	MILLER BAY RD NE	8	8	4
Rural	Major Collector	MILLER BAY RD NE	8	8	4
Rural	Major Collector	MILLER BAY RD NE	8	8	4

4.2.6.11 St. Gabriel’s Church

Within this area, there are 3.1 centerline road miles; 0.8 miles of recorded sidewalk or shoulder (either side of road); and 1.0 miles where we could match the recorded sidewalk or shoulder to a road segment (either side of road). There are duplicate segments matching.

The overall score for pedestrian facilities in St. Gabriel’s Church is 0.0, Very Poor.

A few segments where sidewalks or shoulders were matched to a road segment, but the resulting score was 0 are shown here.

Setting	Class	Name	shoulder R	shoulder L	standard sidewalk
Urban	Minor Arterial	SE LUND AVE	8	8	6
Urban	Minor Arterial	SE LUND AVE	8	8	6
Urban	Minor Arterial	SE LUND AVE	8	8	6
Urban	Local Access	RIDGEWAY PL E	3	7	5
Urban	Local Access	TUFTS AVE E	4	4	5
Urban	Local Access	TUFTS AVE E	4	4	5

5 Conclusion

Using the data publicly available and draft criteria (special committee investigating pedestrian metrics), the overall score for pedestrian facilities in Kitsap County is 0.8, which is interpreted (see methods) as Very Poor.

Smaller breakdowns of the county fare differently. Here, we show a table for each region type. Any region with no segments getting more than a 0, “Nothing” show up with red text. The best region of that type will have bold text, and any regions with a score of Adequate will have green text.

Scores for Commissioner Districts
Area	Score	Interpretation
1 North	1.06	Poor
2 South	0.84	Very Poor
3 Central	0.44	Very Poor

Scores for UGAs
Area	Score	Interpretation
Bremerton East UGA	0.29	Very Poor
Bremerton West UGA	0.01	Very Poor
Central Kitsap UGA	0.08	Very Poor
Gorst UGA	0	Nothing
Kingston UGA	0.19	Very Poor
Port Orchard UGA	0.07	Very Poor
Poulsbo UTA	0	Nothing
Puget Sound Industrial Center - Bremerton	0	Nothing
Silverdale UGA	0.10	Very Poor

Scores for LAMIRDs
Area	Score	Interpretation
Bond/Gunderson	0	Nothing
Ecology Road	0	Nothing
George’s Corner	2.36	Poor
Keyport	0.14	Very Poor
Manchester	1.02	Poor
Port Gamble	0	Nothing
Port Orchard Airport	9.48	Adequate
Streibels Corner	0	Nothing
Suquamish	0.58	Very Poor
Twelve Trees	0.27	Very Poor

Scores for Public Schools
Area	Score	Interpretation
Barker Creek Community School	0.04	Very Poor
Brownsville Elementary	0.03	Very Poor
Burley Glenwood Elementary	0.77	Very Poor
Central Kitsap High	0.06	Very Poor
Central Kitsap Middle	0.06	Very Poor
Chief Kitsap Academy	0.05	Very Poor
Choice Academy	0.28	Very Poor
Clear Creek Elementary	0.50	Very Poor
Cottonwood Elementary	0.22	Very Poor
Cougar Valley Elementary	0	Nothing
David Wolfle Elementary	0.40	Very Poor
Discovery Alternative High	0.05	Very Poor
East Port Orchard Elementary	0.03	Very Poor
Emerald Heights Elementary	0.08	Very Poor
Esquire Hills Elementary	0.02	Very Poor
Fairview Middle	0.17	Very Poor
Green Mountain Elementary	1.02	Poor
Hidden Creek Elementary	0.06	Very Poor
Hilder Pearson Elementary	0.66	Very Poor
John Sedgwick Middle	0.53	Very Poor
Kingston High	0.30	Very Poor
Kingston Middle	0.36	Very Poor
Klahowya Secondary	0.93	Very Poor
Manchester Elementary	0.31	Very Poor
Marcus Whitman Junior High	0.01	Very Poor
Mullenix Ridge Elementary	0.97	Very Poor
Olalla Elementary	0	Nothing
Olympic High	0.03	Very Poor
Orchard Heights Elementary	0.05	Very Poor
Pinecrest Elementary	0.08	Very Poor
Richard Gordon Elementary	0.11	Very Poor
Ridgetop Middle	0.07	Very Poor
Silver Ridge Elementary	0.08	Very Poor
Silverdale Elementary	0.08	Very Poor
South Colby Elementary	0.85	Very Poor
Sunnyslope Elementary	0	Nothing
Suquamish Elementary	0.48	Very Poor
West Hills STEM Academy	0.01	Very Poor
Woodlands Elementary	0.11	Very Poor

Scores for Public Libraries
Area	Score	Interpretation
Kingston KRL	0.18	Very Poor
Little Boston KRL	4.38	Minimum
Manchester KRL	0.29	Very Poor
Silverdale KRL	0.05	Very Poor
Tracyton Community Library	0.05	Very Poor

Scores for Transit Centers
Area	Score	Interpretation
George’s Corner Park & Ride	1.05	Poor
Hwy. 305 & Suquamish Way	0.71	Very Poor
Kingston Ferry Terminal	0.14	Very Poor
McWilliams Park & Ride	0.04	Very Poor
Miller Bay & Indianola	1.64	Poor
Port Orchard Wal-Mart	0.03	Very Poor
Silverdale Transit Center	0.02	Very Poor
Southworth Ferry Terminal	0.71	Very Poor
St. Gabriel’s Church	0.04	Very Poor
Suquamish Park & Ride	0.50	Very Poor
West Bremerton Transit Center	0.01	Very Poor

However, there are a couple of known data irregularities, such as:

missing part of Ridgetop Blvd in Silverdale where sidewalks are known to exist
missing data on sidewalks that are known to exist
unmatched road log identifiers between road and sidewalk and shoulder data

And there are likely unknown data irregularities.

In addition, many road segments have shoulders when their standards suggest they should have sidewalks. Is the presence of a shoulder, though not adequate, really the same as nothing? - that is how the scoring currently calculates.

One cautionary note - while this method evaluates pedestrian facilities, it is entirely focused on the presence of facilities of adequate width and separation from cars. It is not taking into consideration the quality of those facilities. Disrepair (cracks, uneven surfaces) and encroaching vegetation can greatly reduce the usability of pedestrian facilities. Quality of facilities is beyond the scope of this evaluation.

5.0.1 Notes to the special committee drafting this

We have a few to dos on this before we move forward.

Be sure that our criteria make sense to us
Consider how the scores should be interpreted - does the interpretation fit?
Consider if we are missing something critical

References

Kitsap County GIS. 2022a. Kitsap County Geographic Data. https://www.kitsapgov.com/dis/Pages/resources.aspx.

———. 2022b. Kitsap County Incorporated City Polygons. https://ftp.co.kitsap.wa.us/data/gis/datacd/arcview/layers/districts/cities.zip.

Kitsap County Public Works. 2020. Kitsap County Road Standards. https://www.kitsapgov.com/pw/Documents/Kitsap%20County%20Road%20Standards_200706.pdf.

Mapbox and Open Street Map. 2022. Mapbox Isochrone API. https://docs.mapbox.com/api/navigation/isochrone/.

Draft excludes segments that intersect with the Kitsap County incorporated city limits polygons(Kitsap County GIS 2022b)↩︎
Draft assuming Function Class 100 or 110 in Road Centerline Data↩︎
Draft Assuming Function Class 2 in Road Centerline Data↩︎
these are not currently identified because the road centerline data does not include speed limit↩︎
For the specific example of Silverdale Way, there are three entries in the sidewalk data with the Road Log Id of 19515 that matches Silverdale Way, and they all indicate sidewalks on the left side of the road. Further note, all three have a segment ID of 0, so they will not match any of the segments in the roads data if we match on Road Log Id and Segment ID - an entirely different problem with the data that is not isolated to Silverdale Way. 15.1% of the sidewalk data do not have segment ids.↩︎
As roads sometimes change names and road log IDs, there are also some breaks between the road data and sidewalk/shoulder data. This was noted for Madrone Ave in Manchester - given the same road log ID as Main St when the road bends.↩︎
Mostly.↩︎
We intersect the road data with a buffered geometry of the sidewalk or shoulder and then remove any matching roads that do not have the same road log id.↩︎
revisions of road standards should be followed by review and reevaluation of these criteria↩︎
Roads with unknown setting - RUCODE is 0, we match them to the Urban road standards. This may be incorrect.↩︎
This table is only showing the first few entries because it is a long table.↩︎
For completeness, we also checked the road log id, and it has the same data.↩︎
In theory, the miles of recorded sidewalk or shoulder and matched miles could be double the centerline miles if every mile had a sidewalk or shoulder.↩︎
30 minute walking distance calculated using the mapboxapi function mb_isochrone. Isochrones use map data from Mapbox and OpenStreetMap and their data sources. To learn more, visit https://www.mapbox.com/about/maps/ and http://www.openstreetmap.org/copyright.(Mapbox and Open Street Map 2022)↩︎

DRAFT Example Kitsap County Pedestrian Facilities Metrics/Evaluation Report

2022-10-17

1 Purpose

1.1 This Draft

2 Introduction

3 Data and Methods

3.1 Data

3.1.1 Combining the Data

3.1.1.1 Matching on Road Log Id is good but insufficient

3.2 Method of Evaluation

4 Results

4.1 Overall

4.2 Smaller Breakdowns of the County

4.2.1 Commissioner Districts

4.2.1.1 3 Central

4.2.1.2 1 North

4.2.1.3 2 South

4.2.2 UGAs

4.2.2.1 Kingston UGA

4.2.2.2 Bremerton West UGA

4.2.2.3 Port Orchard UGA

4.2.2.4 Bremerton East UGA

4.2.2.5 Central Kitsap UGA

4.2.2.6 Gorst UGA

4.2.2.7 Silverdale UGA

4.2.2.8 Poulsbo UTA

4.2.2.9 Puget Sound Industrial Center - Bremerton

4.2.3 LAMIRDs

4.2.3.1 Manchester

4.2.3.2 Suquamish

4.2.3.3 Streibels Corner

4.2.3.4 Bond/Gunderson

4.2.3.5 Port Orchard Airport

4.2.3.6 Port Gamble

4.2.3.7 Twelve Trees

4.2.3.8 Ecology Road

4.2.3.9 Keyport

4.2.3.10 George’s Corner

4.2.4 Public Schools

4.2.4.1 West Hills STEM Academy

4.2.4.2 David Wolfle Elementary

4.2.4.3 Kingston Middle

4.2.4.4 Choice Academy

4.2.4.5 Suquamish Elementary

4.2.4.6 Cougar Valley Elementary

4.2.4.7 Clear Creek Elementary

4.2.4.8 Central Kitsap High

4.2.4.9 Central Kitsap Middle

4.2.4.10 Ridgetop Middle

4.2.4.11 Silver Ridge Elementary

4.2.4.12 Olympic High

4.2.4.13 Woodlands Elementary

4.2.4.14 Fairview Middle

4.2.4.15 Esquire Hills Elementary

4.2.4.16 Cottonwood Elementary

4.2.4.17 Brownsville Elementary

4.2.4.18 Green Mountain Elementary

4.2.4.19 Marcus Whitman Junior High

4.2.4.20 Manchester Elementary

4.2.4.21 Orchard Heights Elementary

4.2.4.22 East Port Orchard Elementary

4.2.4.23 Sunnyslope Elementary

4.2.4.24 Hidden Creek Elementary

4.2.4.25 South Colby Elementary

4.2.4.26 John Sedgwick Middle

4.2.4.27 Mullenix Ridge Elementary

4.2.4.28 Olalla Elementary

4.2.4.29 Burley Glenwood Elementary

4.2.4.30 Discovery Alternative High

4.2.4.31 Silverdale Elementary

4.2.4.32 Klahowya Secondary

4.2.4.33 Pinecrest Elementary

4.2.4.34 Emerald Heights Elementary

4.2.4.35 Hilder Pearson Elementary

4.2.4.36 Richard Gordon Elementary

4.2.4.37 Kingston High

4.2.4.38 Chief Kitsap Academy

4.2.4.39 Barker Creek Community School

4.2.5 Public Libraries

4.2.5.1 Kingston KRL